Absolutely Couldn't Put it Better Myself

Wow. This is amazing. I've never seen it put this succinctly and clearly...

Timeline of a Housing Disaster

With thanks to whomever assembled all this information, and to Dave Peterson for passing it along to me:


1993

• Congress and President Clinton loosen Home Loan Requirements.[ed.]

1995

• Fannie Mae is a GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by CONGRESS.


• Fannie Mae buys mortgages from other companies.


• It is backed by the TAXPAYERS for all losses, but keeps all profits.

1998

• Banks begin making thousands of bad loans, zero down, no documentation, for 120% (1998-2008).


• Executives at Fannie Mae receive huge bonuses if loan targets are met.


• Franklin Raines & Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.

2003

• President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean-up Fannie Mae, Congress derails the effort.
  
  (Rep. Melvyn Watt {D-NC} Committee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit, stated, "I don't see much other than weakening the bargaining power poorer families to get affordable housing.")


• Raines receives $100 million in bonuses.


• Garelick receives $75 million in bonuses.


• In 2004, ENRON collapses, Congress investigates, Executives Skilling & Lay go to jail, for fraudulent bookkeeping. Congress responds with the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, more heavy regulation of Corporations.

2004

• An OMB investigation finds massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae.


• False numbers triggered executive bonuses every year.


• Congress held NO hearings, NO ONE goes to jail, or is punished.


• WHY NOT?

1999 - 2005

• Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratic causes, examples: Jessie Jackson & ACORN!


• Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 Congressmen and Senators from both Parties. Who got the most money?
  
  1. Sen. Christopher Dodd, {D-CT} Chairman Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee.
  
  
  2. Sen. Barack Obama {D-IL} Federal Financial Management Committee.
  
  
  3. Sen. Chuck Schumer {D-NY} Chairman Finance Committee.
  
  
  4. Rep. Barney Frank {D-MA} Chairman House Financial Services Committee.
  
  

2005

• Franklin Raines & Top Execs are forced to resign from Fannie Mae.


• They do not go to Jail.


• There is NO Media "perp. walk."


• They keep their bonuses.


• They finally pay $31.4 million in Civil Fines.


• The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act is sponsored by: Sen. John McCain {R-AZ} Armed Services, Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  
  1. Senator McCain is 325th on the Fannie Mae Pay List.
  
  
  2. He stated, "If Congress does not act, American Taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
  
  
• None of the top Four on the Fannie Mae Pay List supported the legislation.


• The Reform Act is blocked by Democrats, never even making it out of the committee.


• None of the Politicians on the Fannie Mae Pay List return any of the money, tainted by Fraud.

2008

• Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac go bankrupt and the Govt. Takes them over COMPLETELY.


• Lehman Brothers, goes bankrupt from investing in bad mortgages.


• AIG gets 85 million in Loan Guarantees, after insuring bad Loans and Projects.


• Taxpayers will ultimately pay BILLIONS.


• Franklin Raines is now an advisor to the "OBAMA CAMPAIGN" which wants the govt. to take over more of the economy.


• Did Government involvement in the mortgage market work out?


• How will even MORE government involvement make things better? Do you want to be Sweden?


• McCain favors revising regulations and loan standards and selling off Fannie and Freddie.

SOURCES

• New York Times, 9/13/2003.


• Congressional Record, 5/25/2006.


• Herald Tribune, 4/18/2008.


• Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, 9/16-9/17/2008.


• www.govtrack.com 9/17/2008. Prof. Dennis Jantz, 2008

Want To Know What Caused the Financial Crisis?

The answer to what and who caused the current financial crisis is clear to see, and well recorded on CSPAN and news video over the past 15 years: Democrats. Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and, yes, Barack Obama. Don't believe me? See for yourself:



Time and time again, Republicans, including George W. Bush and John McCain attempted to gain some sort of control over the reckless behavior at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they were blocked every time by the Democrats.

DRILL IN ANWR NOW!

Just an agreement to drill there would immediately lower oil prices, because a large new supply would be on its way. There is NO reasonable objection to opening ANWR and the continental shelf to drilling.



Those who oppose more domestic drilling are putting their idiosyncrasies above the interests of the American people, and they need to wake up.

Ethanol is Destroying Our Economy

What have we done?

Ethanol as a fuel source is less efficient, more expensive, worse for the environment, and completely incapable of resolving our energy needs. Why are we subsidizing its production and mandating its use? The price of corn has doubled over the last several years, and the cost of wheat has tripled. This is directly related to the diversion of American grain yields to the production of Ethanol, rather than contributing to our food supply. The price increases have spread into most of our foodstuffs, yielding significant inflation increases that are exacerbating the already inflationary pressures of high oil prices. What's worse, the Ethanol being produced isn't even close to enough to have any effect whatsoever on the demand for petroleum-based fuels. Its a double whammy: instead of only having to suffer through high oil prices, the U.S. economy is struggling to deal with high oil prices AND ever increasing food prices with no end in sight.

Don't just take my word for it. Check out the facts here, here, and here.

Please contact your representatives in Congress and demand that all subsidies and mandates for Ethanol be eliminated immediately, for the good of the nation. If you want to make a statement while driving, check out this bumper sticker I've put together.

How To Catch Wild Pigs, And Why It Matters

Here's a snippet from an email that's making the rounds. This is not my creation; if its yours, please let me know so I can properly attribute it:

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how To forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

Remember this when you consider whether or not the government really should provide 'free' prescription drugs, or 'free' health insurance.

Which Candidate Do You Support?

I had forwarded to me recently a link to a web site that allows you to specify your positions on a range of issues, and how important those issues are to you, and then uses that information to match you up with the candidate for President who most closely reflects your opinions. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the calculations, but it seemed pretty accurate in my recent test run.

To check it out yourself, visit http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html.

Here's what it had to say for me:

My top choice candidate (based on matching my positions on issues) should be Tom Tancredo, with a 90% match.

Here are my next three:

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 88.10%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 87.30%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 86.51%

Interestingly, Rudy Guliani is all the way down at number 10 for me, with only a 62.7% match. I've always felt that I would only be willing to support Rudy if he was the nominee and we had to beat the democrat.

Go check out the calculator, and let us know what it says. You may find a few surprises.

National Healthcare Insurance = Socialized Medicine

Following is a letter to the editor I submitted to my local newspaper in response to a letter advocating for John Conyers' HR 676, "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act":

In a letter to the editor published recently, Mr. James Montgomery expressed a desire to hear from someone who does not support Socialist Healthcare in America. I'm pleased to grant his wish.

Let's be clear about terminology, here. Mr. Montgomery has written to support HR 676, a bill titled "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act". This bill isn't just about insurance, however. The minute the government becomes the only payer of healthcare bills in America, the healthcare system has been nationalized. The U.S. government would set the prices, decide what procedures and treatments can and can't be performed, and control access to all healthcare. Enacting a single payer system is exactly equivalent to enacting Socialized Medicine in America.

Mr. Montgomery's letter purported to impart some "frightening facts" in support of his contention that government bureaucracy should control and ration the delivery of healthcare services in the United States. Let's address them each in turn:

1) "At least 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of healthcare coverage." - I challenge the supporters of Socialized Medicine to name just one person who has died because they were unable to receive medical treatment as a result of not having healthcare coverage. Just ONE. As we are all well aware, it is illegal for any hospital emergency room to refuse treatment to a patient because they are unable to pay. This is a bogus, unsupported statistic that is patently false.

2) "80 percent of Americans who lack healthcare coverage are families with one or more jobs." - Leaving aside the confusion in this statement regarding whether we're discussing individual Americans or American families, one has to ask: 'What point are you trying to make?'. I would expect its reasonable to assume that at least 80% of any randomly selected sample of American families has "one or more jobs".

3) "More than 50% of bankruptcies occur due to medical bills..." - Again, I ask, 'What point are you trying to make?'. Perhaps Mr. Montgomery would prefer that half of all bankruptcies occur due to identify theft? Maybe bankruptcies due to expenses from frivolous lawsuits are better, in Mr. Montgomery's eyes? The best healthcare in the world can sometimes be expensive, particularly in cases of catastrophic illness or injury. If anything, Socialized Medicine will lead to many, many more bankruptcies, as our taxes go through the roof to pay for the inevitable bureaucratic inefficiency and steep decline in availability and quality of healthcare services.

4) "Of all the nations, the U.S. spends the most on healthcare..." - This is an easy one. You get what you pay for. The United States has the best healthcare system in the world. People from around the world come here to receive top-notch care. Nationalized healthcare insurance would LOWER the quality of healthcare in America substantially, and INCREASE the costs. Ask yourself when you ever observed a government program and said to yourself: 'What a well-run, efficient, cost-effective program!'. I suspect you never have, nor have I.

5) "...the U.S. has the highest rate of people who believe their healthcare system should be reformed." - There's nothing about this statistic (assuming for the sake of argument that its true) that supports Mr. Mongomery's position. This only shows that people want a change; not what type of change they want. Count me as as one of those who strongly believe that the healthcare system should be reformed. We need to de-couple health insurance from employment, and re-introduce market efficiencies into the system by giving the individual to ability to shop for their healthcare services. Healthcare Savings Accounts are a fantastic example of how Americans can re-take control of their medical services.

6) "The spiraling costs of healthcare are negatively impacting American businesses..." - Yet another argument in favor of de-coupling healthcare coverage from employment, and putting the control back in the hands of individual Americans. This isn't in any way an argument for Socialized Healthcare. In fact, its an argument against, as the inevitable spike in taxes will have a much more negative effect on businesses than the healthcare expenses they're currently experiencing.

So there you go, Mr. Montgomery. I DON'T support HR 676 because I don't trust politicians to make my medical decisions. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never met a government program that was efficient and well-run. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never seen the government reduce costs for anything. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy patient incentives to find the best possible prices and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy physician incentives to provide competitive services and prices, and would destroy pharmaceutical companies' incentive to develop new drugs and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would result in stealing from your wallet to pay MY healthcare costs. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would inevitably lead to the deterioration of healthcare services in the United States.

Border Security First

Following is the text of a letter I just sent to my senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. I encourage you to contact your senators as well regarding the inadvisability of the amnesty bill currently being considered.

Senator Chambliss,

As a strong supporter of yours, I just wanted to contribute my voice to the overwhelming majority of Georgians who oppose the amnesty bill (and it IS an amnesty bill, call it whatever you wish) currently under consideration, and that you have indicated support for.

You were quoted in the Marietta Daily Journal as saying that you believed that Georgians supported the bill. We absolutely do not support that bill.

As you know, amnesty failed when it was tried last in 1986. The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is securing the border and making it difficult or impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Nothing more, nothing less. If the border were adequately protected, and it was very difficult for illegals to find paying jobs, they would leave of their own accord. The objection that we don't have the resources for a "mass deportation" of 12 million people is a complete straw man. Its not necessary. Close the borders and make it difficult to find work, and they will deport themselves.

As a part of such a bill, legal immigration limits could be raised, and additional resources dedicated to processing those who are entering the country lawfully, to speed their progress.

Until the borders are demonstrably secure (not just the money having been spent), and the illegal immigrant population begins to fall, would it be responsible to consider any type of temporary worker program.

As I said, I am a supporter of yours, and I want to commend you on the strong stand you've taken in support of winning the War in Iraq, and on keeping taxes low.

Feel free to use this as a template for your own letter to your senators and representatives.

No Amnesty Petition

The Ant and the Grasshopper

This is one of those emails that periodically go around, but the story and moral here are so perfect, I just had to post it.

*OLD VERSION*

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

*2007 MODERN VERSION*

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast in life styles. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that in l992,Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

No Surrender in Iraq

Here's a petition from WeWinTheyLose.com. Please consider signing it and telling your friends about it:

Voting For Defeat

Its important for everyone to understand that a vote in Congress for the resolution currently being considered that would express disapproval for the sending of reinforcements to Iraq is a vote FOR DEFEAT for America in Iraq. Such a vote will encourage our enemies, and give our friends pause about the reliability of America.

Its been said over and over. Defeat in Iraq would be a calamity, not only for us, but for the world. I can't possibly understand why it is that the Liberals in Congress want the U.S. to fail. Biden, Kennedy, why? Why are you aiding our enemies?

Economic Freedom Strongly Related to Good Economic Performance

This one comes from the "Duh" file, but it bears repeating often that the most free nations are the best economic performers. A free nation is defined as one in which its citizens have business (regulatory) freedom, fiscal freedom, trade freedom, and freedom from government interference, among other freedoms. The beneficiaries of the stellar economic performance are all citizens of those nations, across income levels.

To put it another way: capitalistic societies perform better economically, and result in a better life for the poorest living in them, than socialistic societies. The more government interferes in the economy and lives of its citizens, even when its intentions are good, the worse off people living under that government become.

Here's the most recent Index of Economic Freedom report. There's plenty of detailed data to back up the findings of the report, which, as I said, should be self-evident to any critical thinker.

Following is a snippet from the Executive Summary of the report:

Economic freedom is strongly related to good economic performance. The world's freest countries have twice the average per capita income of the second quintile of countries and over five times the average income of the fifth quintile of countries. The freest economies also have lower rates of unemployment and lower inflation. These relationships hold across each quintile, meaning that every quintile of less free econo-mies has worse average rates of inflation and unemployment than the preceding quintile has.

Reading Assignment

The following two articles, written prior to the election, should be required reading for every American. Its too bad that more voters didn't read them before November 7th, but all is not lost: the War on Terror must continue, and the first step must be a stable, democratic Iraq.

I will warn you, though, that the first one is a difficult read, because it describes a very terrible, (thankfully only) possible, future world.

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

There WILL be a quiz, and it will take place in 2008.

Turnout Looks Good in Conservative Cobb

I voted this morning, and I noted that the lines were very long. Longer than I remember for any other midterm election. Hopefully that bodes well that very-conservative Cobb County is turning out strongly.

Securing the Peace is a Lot Harder than Wishing for It

Keep that in mind when you vote today. Enough said.

More Resentment Than Gratitude

Below is an axiom I stumbled on, as quoted by George Will:

"Any new entitlement generates less gratitude for what is given than it does resentment for what is withheld."

How perfectly does that capture our experience?

Where is the American Resolve?

Wars can't be won halfway. Either a nation throws itself fully into the task of defeating its enemies, or it is defeated.

In the War on Terror, currently raging in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, I'm afraid that some Americans are losing their resolve. They've become bored with the struggle, and just want their quiet, easy lives back. How shallow. This is a war for our very way of life. On one side, we are fighting for freedom, modernity, and civilization. On the other side, the Islamists are fighting for power and barbarity, the subjection of those who are not elites, and the destruction of Christianity and Judiasm.

What's more, the Western world is becoming its own worst enemy in this conflict. Its Western media that beams the images of destruction around the world, and hangs the responsibility on the American and Israeli military by way of falsified photos and flippant, misleading captions.

As Cal Thomas notes in his recent column on Townhall (referring to recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee):

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

More from Cal Thomas:

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved. America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Make no mistake. This is a war that must be won. What's more, its unfortunate but true that civilians will be killed. The terrorist's tactics make it certain. Just as tragically, American soldiers will be killed and injured. But in the face of that, the United States of America must maintain its resolve to win the fight and preserve freedom and our way of life.

Steve and Cokie Get It Wrong, Again

Steve and Cokie's latest column, titled "Bush's Stubbornness", was startling in the number of inaccuracies, misleading statements, and apparent willful misinterpretation of reality. The gist if their argument is that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell funding legislation somehow represents the triumph of hard-headedness over "science". Unfortunately, their argument is full of holes.

First of all, through most of the column, the Roberts' refer to the research covered by the legislation that President Bush vetoed as "stem cell" research. This, I believe, is an intentional attempt to make people believe that the president, and those who agree with him are opposed to stem cell research in general. In fact, both the objection and the vetoed legislation apply specifically to embryonic stem cell research, and not to that research that is based on adult stem cells, or those derived from placental or umbilical cord blood.

Steve and Cokie make the argument that embryonic stem cell (ESC) research raises "...the possibility of new treatments for a range of debilitating conditions, from cancer and Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries". What they don't bother to mention, however, is that those same conditions are being treated NOW using adult stem cells (ASC). Adult stem cells (as the name implies) come from adults, or from umbilical cord or placental blood, and retrieving them doesn't result in the destruction of any life. At least 72 different diseases and conditions are currently treatable using therapies derived from adult stem cell research. How many conditions are currently treated using therapies derived from ESC research? NOT ONE. That's right. Not a single person has ever been treated as a result of embryonic stem cell research. Progress and scientific advancements are much more pronounced with ASC research, yet some are clamoring for federal dollars to go to embryonic stem cell research. Why?

There are two groups of people who really stand to gain from ESC: the pro-abortion crowd and a minority of pharmaceutical/bio-technology companies. The pro-abortion crowd wants to continue to chip away at society's respect for the sanctity of life. If they can get the public to agree that its OK to destroy a fetus for research, why not then for convenience? The pharma/bio-tech companies have a financial motive. If they can arrange for the taxpayer to foot some of their costs, all the better for their bottom lines'.

Its clear that President Bush's veto certainly wasn't an example of hard-headedness winning out over "science". Science and practical application is solidly on the side of adult stem cell-derived therapies. Why should the taxpayers pay to destroy human life in the off-chance that it could lead to alternative treatments that, in many cases, are already treatable using adult stem Cells? Just as importantly, denying federal funding to ESC research does not in any way restrict or limit the private funding of that research, or the chances that a cure or treatment will be found, through that or any other form of research. Its ridiculous to imply, or outright state, (as the Roberts' do in their column), that people are suffering because the government won't pay for ESC research.

The icing on the cake in Steve and Cokie's column was this little gem: "...[President Bush] refuses to recognize that most moral choices are not between good and evil, but between competing virtues." According to the Oxford dictionary, the word "moral" is defined as: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". No "competing virtues" there. The Roberts' statement is exactly what's wrong with so much of society today: there is such a thing as objective right and wrong. Morality is not in the eye of the beholder. Destroying human embryos, whether for research or convenience (as is done in an abortion), is wrong. Period.